Virginia – The new ‘power’ in Virginia politics have decided to push all their constituent’s buttons.

First, it was full-blown gun confiscation, then it was a mandatory registration process. Then they started looking into shutting down outdoor ranges, then eliminating indoor ranges unless they were in buildings owned or leased by the Commonwealth of Virginia. Then they decided that gun-free zones were not enough. Apparently, they needed ammunition-free zones as well. 

And, oh by the way, they also flirted with the idea of using the National Guard to enforce all these potential gun law changes after the majority of Virginia sheriffs said that they would not enforce them. It led to a common-sense response from a state delegate.

Thousands of cops, veterans, supporters pledge to join militia in Virginia to combat unconstitutional laws

Thousands of cops, veterans, supporters pledge to join militia in Virginia to combat unconstitutional laws

 

And now, with full knowledge that what they are doing is unconstitutional, and from a place of what I assume is fear, Paul Krizek wrote a bill that, if passed, could make it virtually impossible for these rights-stealing politicians to get recalled. These unconstitutional hacks are not only trying to move their state to a tyrannical environment, they are trying to make sure that they can enact their illegal will without fear of reprisal or removal from office.

The bill is summarized as:

Removal of public officers; petition requirements; signature requirements. Clarifies that the requirement that a petition for the removal of a public officer be signed under penalty of perjury applies only to the person or persons filing such petition with the circuit court. Registered voters signing the petition for purposes of reaching the required number of signatures shall not be required to sign under penalty of perjury. The bill also increases the required number of signatures to a number of registered voters in the locality equal to 25 percent, up from 10 percent, of the total number of votes cast at the last election for the office, and requires the signatures to be collected within a 60-day period.

The recall process in Virginia is like most states. There is a petition that must gain signatures of registered voters in the district of the elected official. Prior to Krizek’s bill, it required the signatures of 10% of the number of votes in the previous election. The petition would then be sent to the circuit court who would then require the elected official to show cause why they should not be removed from office. If the court determines that they do not show just cause to stay in office, they go to trial. If found to be in breech of any of the actions that provide grounds for removal, they will be removed from office.  

While we were not able to find out how many registered voters live in the area with a population of 80,010, the numbers from the election in 2019 show that 19,407 people voted. With a 10% requirement, a petition for a recall would need 1,941 signatures.

Should Krizek’s bill get pass the General Assembly and wind up on Governor Northam’s desk for signature, the number of required signatures would be 25%.

For Krizek’s district, that would be 4,852.

Escalating the recall process to the governor’s mansion, it would require over 646,000 signatures.

Incoming Virginia lawmakers propose bill that could make martial arts, firearms training felonies

Incoming Virginia lawmakers propose bill that would make martial arts, firearms training felonies

 

Oh, I forgot to mention, the signature gathering window is 60 days. And, the filer of the petition has to sign it under penalty of perjury related to the statement of the grounds or reasons for removal.

In case you are wondering what offenses rise to the level of removal from office, here you go.

  1. For neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties when that neglect of duty, misuse of office, or incompetence in the performance of duties has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of the office;
  2. Upon conviction of a misdemeanor pursuant to Article 1 (§ 18.2-247 et seq.) or Article 1.1 (§18.2-265.1 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2 and after all rights of appeal have terminated involving the:
  3. Manufacture, sale, gift, distribution, or possession with intent to manufacture, sell, give, or distribute a controlled substance or marijuana;
  4. Sale, possession with intent to sell, or placing an advertisement for the purpose of selling drug paraphernalia; or
  5. Possession of any controlled substance or marijuana and such conviction under subdivision a, b, or c has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of such office;
  6. Upon conviction, and after all rights of appeal have terminated, of a misdemeanor involving a “hate crime” as that term is defined in § 52-8.5 when the conviction has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of such office; or
  7. Upon conviction, and after all rights of appeal have terminated, of sexual battery in violation of § 18.2-67.4, attempted sexual battery in violation of subsection C of § 18.2-67.5, peeping or spying into dwelling or enclosure in violation of § 18.2-130, consensual sexual intercourse with a child 15 years of age or older in violation of § 18.2-371, or indecent exposure of himself or procuring another to expose himself in violation of § 18.2-387, and such conviction has a material adverse effect upon the conduct of such office.

The petition must be signed by a number of registered voters who reside within the jurisdiction of the officer equal to25 percent of the total number of votes cast at the last election for the office that the officer holds. Such signatures shall be collected within a period of 60 days. A registered voter signing the petition shall not be required to sign under penalties of perjury.

Any person removed from office under the provisions of subdivision 2, 3, or 4 may not be subsequently subject to the provisions of this section for the same criminal offense.

So, the obvious question would be: which of the above was Northam and Democratic leadership guilty of when they decided that they were just going to trample on the 2nd Amendment rights of Virginians under threats of martial law and military governance?

Speaking of recall efforts, Humboldt County, Nevada has a population of only 17,000 people and covers almost 10,000 square miles. But regardless of its small size, it could be playing a huge role in shaping the argument across the national landscape. 

Law Enforcement Today spoke with multiple sources familiar with the circumstances.

Several people in the county seat of Winnemucca are leading the effort to recall Humboldt County Sheriff Mike Allen.

The recall effort against Allen is simple. His constituents say he will not protect them against unconstitutional laws that seek to circumvent an individual’s rights provided by the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th and 14th Amendments.

Sheriff breaks gun confiscation pledge. Now the voters are going after his badge.

Sheriff Mike Allen

 

Allen states that while he opposes those laws, it is his job to enforce them. Of the 17 county sheriffs in Nevada, 13 have declared that they will not enforce them. Allen is the only one in the northern portion of the state that has said he will comply with the orders.

“They’re taking up a fight against me on something the Legislature has to do, and they think I have the authority not to follow the law,” Allen said. “I do oppose this law. However, it’s my not my job to oppose a law; my job is to enforce the law.”

That’s funny, because here is the statement taken directly from the Humboldt County website.

“The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office is dedicated to the citizens living and visiting Humboldt County by earning and maintaining their trust and confidence with professional law enforcement services. While carrying out daily duties and responsibilities, the Sheriff’s Office will ensure that the people’s constitutional rights are upheld.

Hey Sheriff, I have a couple of questions for you.

  1. Are you an American first, or a Nevadan?
  2. Do you get to pick and choose which laws you enforce, or do you operate with discretion?
  3. During your campaign for the office of Sheriff, did you not day: “I believe that civil liberties are sacred and should not be violated, I believe that just because something is legal, it isn’t necessarily moral”?
  4. Didn’t you join the 16 other Nevada Sheriffs in signing a letter to constituents?
  5. Didn’t your signature endorse statements such as:

“The Sheriffs of the State of Nevada are here to enforce the law and uphold the Constitutions of this state and this country. We will do so with all persons, while still protecting our Second Amendment freedoms.”

And…

“The Second Amendment is important to us, and we as Sheriffs will uphold all that it stands for. We will work within the law and not succumb to perceived threats, rumor, false or malicious information to weight our decision-making process.”

And…

“We as Nevada Sheriffs support The Right to Bear Arms, and we will do all within our power to uphold and defend its principles.”

So, let’s pick this apart, shall we?

To question 1.

You are an American first, a Nevadan second. If you packed up everything you owned, got on I-80W and went 198 miles to Truckee, California and settled down, you would become a Californian…but you would still be an American. You can change statehood simply by moving. To no longer be an American, you must renounce your citizenship.

My point?

With this being the case, the inalienable rights that our founders afforded us as citizens of the greatest country in the history of mankind are not to be trivialized and walked on by the states. End of discussion.

You swore to protect and defend the Constitutions of both this amazing nation and then the state of Nevada, not the other way around.

Question 2.

According to you, you are not able to pick and choose which laws you enforce/ignore.

Since we are discussing unconstitutional laws, would you also enforce laws passed by the Nevada state legislators that required you to initiate traffic stops on black drivers at a rate of 3x that of white drivers?

Of course, you wouldn’t. And why not? Because it is wrong. It is a violation of people’s civil rights. And you would undoubtedly balk at the notion of such a law.

So why is the trampling of our 2nd Amendment rights less worthy of you standing up and saying, “No! Not on my watch.”

Only you can answer that. But if I had to surmise a guess, it would either be that you do not actually oppose the red flag laws as you stated, or it is that keeping your job is more important to you than doing the right thing.

Again, only you can answer that.

Militia arms up as anti-American "leaders" in Virginia change the law to keep themselves in power

Sheriff Scott Jenkins said he would deputize thousands of citizens to avoid unconstitutional gun laws. (Flickr)

 

But just in case I, who never served in law enforcement was off base in my thought process, I spoke with numerous members of law enforcement from different areas of the country this week; asking them what they would do if their sheriff or chief said the things you have said and then forced them to put themselves in harm’s way, while sitting comfortably behind their desk.

Each of them responded the same way, almost word for word.

“I am out. No way am I acting on a warrantless search and seizure that violates the constitutional rights of an American citizen.”

I spoke with one cop whom I respect and admire beyond words. To quote him,

“People deserve due process. If it is no longer available, then my time in law enforcement will soon come to an end.”

See, what I detailed above for each of them is essentially what you did.

Did you know that Law Enforcement Today has a private new home for those who support emergency responders and veterans? It’s called LET Unity, and it’s where we share the untold stories of those patriotic Americans. Every penny gets reinvested into giving these heroes a voice. Check it out today.

Militia arms up as anti-American "leaders" in Virginia change the law to keep themselves in power

 

Questions 3, 4 and 5 have already been answered. We have your campaign statements and a copy of the letter with your signature.

Furthermore, you sat in a commissioner’s meting and answered questions.

One of the questions that was asked was how you would fulfill a “no-knock” warrant or “red flag” order if the gun owner refused to turn them over.

Your response:

“It would depend on the circumstances. There are always other ways, that if we had to fulfill the warrant, there are other circumstances we could take into consideration. A lot of times, we can wait until they leave, surveillance, but if we have a legal warrant,” (at this point chatter in the room makes the rest of your response inaudible.

You later said in an interview that your comments were taken out of context.

I have to ask…what other context could their possibly be?

In this same meeting, you said that “red flag” orders were granted by judges who heard the facts of the circumstances and determined if there is probable cause to issue the order.

Even you must agree that hearsay is typically not admissible in court. So, why would it be enough for probable cause? Most instances of “red flag” orders are based off of “he said, she said” scenarios.

A town hall meeting was held not that long ago, where you and your command staff sat in front of many of your constituents. The entire thing was videoed. It is almost 2 hours in length. And I watched the entire thing. 

At the :40-minute mark, you said:

“Nobody is coming into your house and taking your guns.”

Actually, you are. And you said as much during the previous meeting…even if you have to wait until the residents leave the premises.

An hour and 18 minutes in you were asked if you yourself would show up in the middle of the night to serve one of these “no-knock” warrant, that could potentially end with a homeowner believing that they are being broken into and defending themselves.

You said:

“More than likely not.”

So…you are willing to send your deputies into a situation that could result in loss of life (just not yours), all to enforce a law that you believe is unconstitutional.

You even said that you believe that one hour and 12 minutes in.

Around the :55 minute mark, a gentleman asked:

“If you come to my house in the middle of the night,  with my wife sleeping next to me, my kids are asleep in their room, and you kick in my door, what do expect me to do? Have I been charged with a crime? No. I have been accused anonymously and a judge has just leveled a sentence of possible death on me.”

Your response was priceless (sarcasm intended). The best you could muster was:

“I understand.”

For the record, during this gentleman’s emotional question, your command staff and the DA look completely bored.

Is that the best you could do, really? I think, if we are all being honest, what you really wanted to say was, “if you shoot at my deputies while they are kicking in your door, they will shoot back. At the very least, you will be charged with attempted murder. Worst case scenario…people die.”

And why? Because you chose to enact a no-win situation of a law that is already costing people their lives.

I do not doubt that Sheriff Allen has served with honor and distinction for the vast majority of his career, but on this one, in my opinion, he got it wrong.

If he continues to hold this office, and people die, it will be placed at his feet…all because he wanted to play politics rather than protect and defend the constitution by taking the same stand that so many other law enforcement leaders are taking.

So, the group, Humboldt County 2ndAmendment Grassroots has turned in enough signatures to submit the petition for the recall. It will be filed with the Nevada Secretary of State in January.

Sheriff Allen could be recalled in March or April of 2020.

Unfortunately, the issue didn’t simply stop with the petition being filed with the county clerk’s office.

Sheriff Allen was notified about the filing by the county clerk, Tami Spero. He and Captain Sean Wilkin went to the clerk’s office and were allowed to “thumb through” the petitions and see who all had signed in favor of recall. This was in violation of state law (NRS 293.126.7.).    

Since their viewing of the petitions, sources state that Allen and other members of his Command Staff have allegedly engaged in “harassment, intimidation, threats, retaliation, slandering and cyber-bullying of the citizens that are signing the recall petition or coordinating and participating in the recall effort.”

Screenshots of Facebook posts from earlier this month show that the wife of Captain Wilkin has been encouraging people to stop shopping at the business of one of the Grassroots group members.

There are also questions surrounding a few people calling the clerk’s office and having their names removed from the petition after the sheriff got a look at it.

We are in process of bringing our readers an update on this effort.

 


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First